This refers to two separate inspections conducted on May 5 and 6, 2004,
at your Richmond, Virginia, and Chantilly, Virginia facilities, and a
subsequent related investigation completed by our Office of Investigations
(OI), on March 14, 2005. During the inspections, it was determined that
licensed material contained in portable gauging devices was transferred
from each facility to an individual not authorized to receive or possess
byproduct material. The purpose of the OI investigation was to determine
if these transfers occurred with the knowledge that they were in violation
of NRC requirements.

As described in our letter sent to you on June 30, 2005, two apparent
violations of NRC requirements were identified, both of which involved
the improper transfers. Our letter also noted that the violations were
being considered for escalated enforcement in accordance with the NRC
Enforcement Policy. As noted in the Factual Summary of the OI Investigation
Report attached to the letter, the violation that occurred at your Chantilly
facility was determined to be willful. The June 30, 2005 letter also
provided you the opportunity to discuss the NRC findings at a Predecisional
Enforcement Conference (PEC).

On July 28, 2005, a PEC was conducted in the Region I office with you
and members of your staff to discuss the apparent violations, their significance,
their root causes, and your corrective actions. At the conference, you
(1) acknowledged the facts surrounding the transfers of licensed material
to an individual not authorized to receive or possess the material, (2)
discussed your immediate and long term corrective actions to ensure that
the violations will not recur, and (3) took exception to the NRC conclusion
that the transfers from your Chantilly facility were willful. At the
conference, we also confirmed that the name on your license has been
changed from Engineering Consulting Services, Inc. to ECS Mid-Atlantic,
LLC. A copy of the Enforcement Conference Report was sent to you on August
15, 2005.

Based on the information developed during the inspections and the OI
investigation, and the information provided by you during the enforcement
conference, the NRC has determined that two violations of NRC requirements
occurred. The first violation relates to the sale and transfer of a portable
gauging device containing licensed material from your Richmond facility
(License No. 45-25239-01) on September 15, 2003, to an individual not
authorized by the NRC or an Agreement State to receive or possess licensed
material. Although the individual was certified to service gauges at
your facility, he was not authorized to possess the devices.

The second violation relates to the willful transfer of several portable
gauges (containing licensed material) from your Chantilly facility (License
No. 45-24974-01) to the same individual on April 29, 2004, and other
undetermined dates. In contesting the willful characterization of this
violation, you stated that before the illegal transfer occurred, staff
at your Chantilly location had received documents verifying that the
individual was certified by the device manufacturer to repair, calibrate,
and train personnel on the use of the devices. This manufacturer certification
is not a license authorizing possession of licensed material. Notwithstanding
your contention, the NRC maintains the violation was willful because
the Chantilly facility received several messages from the ECS Construction
Services Manager questioning whether the individual was licensed to receive/possess
and/or transfer portable gauges. Based on all the available information,
the NRC has concluded that personnel employed at your Chantilly facility
exercised careless disregard by transferring several portable gauges,
on several separate occasions, to an individual that was not authorized
to receive and/or possess licensed material.

Although the individual who received the gauges from your Richmond and
Chantilly facilities was knowledgeable in the proper procedures for handling
radioactive material, your staff's actions are of concern to the
NRC because the transfer of licensed material to an individual not authorized
to receive or possess the material is a violation of NRC requirements
and circumvents the NRC licensing process. The transfer of licensed material
to an unauthorized individual could have exposed members of the public
to unnecessary risks. Therefore, these violations are categorized at
Severity Level III in accordance with the Enforcement Policy.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the
amount of $3,250 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because
your Richmond facility has not been the subject of escalated enforcement
actions in the last two years or two inspections, the NRC considered
whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with
the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement
Policy. Credit for corrective actions is warranted because your corrective
actions were considered prompt and comprehensive. These corrective actions
included, but were not limited to: (1) immediately removing the unauthorized
individual from your company's vendor list; (2) providing specific
instructions to all company Radiation Safety Officers regarding the proper
procedures for transferring NRC licensed material; and (3) increasing
required audits at your sites to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

With respect to the Richmond facility, because the violation was not
willful and to encourage prompt and comprehensive correction of the violation,
I have been authorized not to propose a civil penalty for this violation.
However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil
penalty. In addition, issuance of this Notice of Violation constitutes
escalated enforcement action that may subject your Richmond facility
to increased inspection effort.

With respect to the Chantilly facility, because the NRC determined that
the violation was willful, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted
for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil
penalty assessment process in Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
Credit for identification is not warranted because the violation was
identified by the NRC during the inspection, and not because of any special
self-monitoring effort by your management or staff. Credit for corrective
actions is warranted because your corrective actions were considered
prompt and comprehensive. These corrective actions were the same as those
taken for the Richmond facility.

Therefore, to emphasize the significance of willful noncompliance with
NRC requirements, as well as prompt identification when a noncompliance
occurs, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director,
Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the base amount of $3,250 for
the violation that occurred at your Chantilly facility. In addition,
issuance of this Notice constitutes escalated enforcement action that
may subject your Chantilly facility to increased inspection effort.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notices when preparing your response. In your
response, you may reference any previous correspondence that is applicable
to this case to avoid repetitive submissions. The NRC will use your response,
in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary
to ensure compliance with regulatory
requirements.

If you disagree with the enforcement sanction taken with respect to
the willful violation at your Chantilly facility, you may request alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) with the NRC concerning that violation. ADR
is a general term encompassing various techniques for resolving conflict
outside of court using a neutral third party. The NRC is currently utilizing
ADR during a pilot program for issues involving willful or deliberate
violations. The technique that the NRC has decided to employ during the
pilot program is mediation. In mediation, a neutral mediator with no
decision-making authority helps parties clarify issues, explore settlement
options, and evaluate how best to advance their respective interests.
The mediator's responsibility is to assist the parties in reaching
an agreement; however, the mediator has no authority to impose a resolution
upon the parties. Mediation is a confidential and voluntary process.
If the parties to the ADR process (the NRC and the licensee) agree to
use ADR, they select a mutually agreeable neutral mediator and share
equally the cost of the mediator's services. Generally, the NRC is willing
to discuss the resolution of three potential issues regarding any willful
or deliberate violation: (1) whether a violation occurred; (2) the appropriate
enforcement action; and (3) the appropriate corrective actions for the
violation. Additional information can be found on the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program's web page.
The Institute on Conflict Resolution (ICR) at Cornell University has
agreed to facilitate the NRC's program as an intake neutral. Intake
neutrals perform several functions, including: assisting parties in determining
the ADR potential for their case, advising parties regarding the ADR
process, aiding the parties in selecting an appropriate mediator, explaining
the extent of confidentiality, and providing other logistical assistance
as necessary. Please contact ICR at (607) 255-1124 within 10 days of
the date of this letter if you are interested in pursing resolution of
this issue through ADR. You may also contact Nick Hilton, Office of Enforcement,
at (301) 415-3055 for additional information.

Questions concerning this letter and the enclosed Notices may be addressed
to John D. Kinneman, Chief, Security and Industrial Nuclear Safety Branch,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety. Mr. Kinneman can be reached at
telephone number (610)-337-5252.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a
copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be made available
electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room
or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's
document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at the Public NRC Library.

During an NRC inspection conducted on May 5, 2004, as well as a
subsequent investigation completed by the NRC Office of Investigations
on March
16, 2005, one violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance
with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement
Actions," the violation is listed below:

10 CFR 30.41 requires, in part, that before transferring byproduct
material to another party, the licensee transferring the material
must verify that the other party possesses a specific or general license
from
the NRC or an Agreement State to receive the material, and the other
party's license authorizes the receipt of the type, form, and
quantity of byproduct material to be transferred. 10 CFR 30.41(d)
specifies acceptable
methods for this verification.

Contrary to the above, on September 15, 2003, the licensee transferred,
by sale, a CPN nuclear gauge (containing byproduct material) from its
facility in Richmond, Virginia, to Universal Calibrations (UC) of Westbrook,
Maine, and UC was not authorized by an NRC or an Agreement State license
to receive the material, and the licensee did not verify by an acceptable
method whether UC was authorized to receive the material.

This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC, is
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington,
D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, within
30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation
(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a
Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1)
the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing
the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the
results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid
further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence,
if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If
an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice,
an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license
should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action
as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration
will be given to extending the response time.

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy
of your response to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Under the authority
of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, any response which contests
an enforcement action shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

Your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
and on the NRC Library webpage.
To the
extent possible, it should, therefore, not include any personal privacy,
proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made publically
available without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include
such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information
that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis
to support your request for withholding the information from the public.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice
within two working days.